The Anti Rangers SNP

[JFK-1 1,666]

3 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Definitely hysterical.

And there you go again, talking and saying nothing and seemingly don't even know it.  And again I will point out that recognising face masks and para military style displays on our streets is sinister is not hysterical.  These views are social norms in every civilised country in the world and those who support them are seen as extremist nutcases.

 

And again I and the majority don't want our club linked with it.  It's one of the things that separated us from the other side and their terroristic like displays. Which seemingly you would have no problem with. I do because now if we point a finger at it they will just point the finger back. 

[Gonzo79 13,553]

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

but I hardly think I've got serious issues because I disagree with you on this point 

Just admit it, you're an extremist nutcase. 

We could maybe start an Extremist Nutcases Anonymous Group?

[Bluedell 5,329]

57 minutes ago, Darthter said:

The club is registered to the SCOTTISH FA, the parent company is SCOTTISH registered and when playing abroad, represents SCOTLAND.  Therefore the club is 1st & foremost SCOTTISH, since there is no British Football Assoc. or even any cross-border initiatives etc.

 

I would say that the Club is more (officially) Royalist, than Unionist - this is shown by the various portraits of the Queen.  However, I believe that the unionism is generated by the fans and probably originates from the Royalist belief.  Many folk will believe that you can't be Royalist & Pro-Indy...which isn't true.  

 

If you're Scottish, you're British. We may be foremost Scottish but that doesn't take away from the fact that we're British as well.

 

As I've pointed out before, the manager and chairman of the club put their names to the Save the Union campaign in the 90s. We have always flown the Union Flag. There are other examples of our unionist traditions.

[JFK-1 1,666]

2 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I didn't agree with the unauthorised march, the use of the F word or the threats of physical violence on the leaflet, but I really can't get too excited by the use of the ultra style face-masks. It's maybe not the cleverest thing to have done but it's very low down the scale of things in my opinion.

 

You obviously have different views, which is fine, but I hardly think I've got serious issues because I disagree with you on this point

Ok we're almost entirely on the same page but regarding the face masks that's not a view.  That's common opinion anywhere in the civilised world. You think the club would endorse and be happy to be linked with images like this?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty confident the answer is no and for obvious reasons.  The obvious reasons move it out of teh sphere of a mere 'view'

 

In my view. 

[Gonzo79 13,553]

I'll have nightmares after seeing those pictures.  No, really...

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 hour ago, Darthter said:

Can someone please point out any specific area SNP policy that is Anti-Rangers???

 

The comments etc mention in the original article are attributed to specific people and are not representative of SNP policy.  The main issue is that their comments etc were made from their "work" accounts rather than personal one.

 

Politics should play absolutely ZERO part of supporting a football team!!! 

So the SNP ONLY do things that are SNP policy?

 

The SNP do and say things that are not part of official policy all the time, as do every political party. To try and excuse the attacks on our club by saying it's not policy is pretty feeble. It's just coming across as an excuse for you not do anything about it and just stick your head in the sand as the attacks continue. Oh, and it's definitely representative of the SNP.

 

Try telling your MPs and MSPs that politics shouldn't be brought into football. They're the ones who are making an issue of our club.

[JFK-1 1,666]

4 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I'll have nightmares after seeing those pictures.  No, really...

And there you go again, talking and saying nothing.  Belittling the face of it with more vacuous nothing negating nothing.  But then you support anything anyone in a scarf does no matter how detrimental it is to the club. Right?

 

 I on the other hand support the club and the public face plus reputation of the club. Not every fringe group wearing a blue scarf. 

[Bluedell 5,329]

11 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

Ok we're almost entirely on the same page but regarding the face masks that's not a view.  That's common opinion anywhere in the civilised world. You think the club would endorse and be happy to be linked with images like this?

 

 

I'm pretty confident the answer is no and for obvious reasons.  The obvious reasons move it out of teh sphere of a mere 'view'

 

In my view. 

I'm sure that the club would say that they don't want fans singing the Sash, for example. There's loads that the club wouldn't want us doing. Would I prefer that they didn't have the masks? Yes, but, as I said it's very low down on my list of issues, and it's not something that I'd complain about. We're just at opposite ends of the emphasis scale.

[JFK-1 1,666]

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

I'm sure that the club would say that they don't want fans singing the Sash, for example. There's loads that the club wouldn't want us doing. Would I prefer that they didn't have the masks? Yes, but, as I said it's very low down on my list of issues, and it's not something that I'd complain about. We're just at opposite ends of the emphasis scale.

 I would say my view is in line with that of the club if they had to state one which if this type of display continues they may be forced to because this can't lead to anything good.  You must surely agree with that.

 

I'm hardly emphasising anything. I'm commenting on a point. 

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

 I would say my view is in line with that of the club if they had to state one which if this type of display continues they may be forced to because this can't lead to anything good.  You must surely agree with that.

 

I'm hardly emphasising anything. I'm commenting on a point. 

You were emphasising it when you said that people who didn't find it sinister had serious problems.